Industrial Relations in Europe 2012 - European Commission - Europa

established tripartite cooperation. In other countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands and France,
the preparation and establishment of unemployment benefit systems is dominated by bipartite
consultation.
At the other end of the scale, the new EU Member States have only recently developed tripartite
concertation and social dialogue as a whole does not have a long history. Further, in countries such
as the UK, Germany and Greece, there is an absence of tripartite consultation on unemployment
benefits (Schaapman M and van het Kaar R 2007).
Similarly, the role of the social partners in the administration of unemployment benefit systems
ranges from high levels of formal involvement and participation to countries where the social
partners have no role at all. Schaapman M and van het Kaar R (2007) have summarised the
involvement of the social partners in the administration of unemployment benefit schemes and
unemployment benefit services, highlighting national differences. For example, although the French
social partners play a formal role in decision-making, their actual influence is reported to be
minimal. In Greece, although efforts have been made to include the social partners more fully in the
administration of benefits, their influence is reported to remain minimal in practical terms. This is
also reported to be the case in Spain, where, although there are high levels of involvement, actual
influence is not reported to be high. Conversely, in countries such as Cyprus, Ireland, Italy,
Norway, Slovakia and the UK, the social partners have no formal role in the administration of the
unemployment benefits system.
Countries where there are high levels of formal involvement and influence include Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Slovenia and Sweden, where the social partners play an
important role in the administration of unemployment benefit systems. This list includes the
countries in which the Ghent system operates (see below).
The most recent comparative research examining social partner involvement in unemployment
benefit systems (Eurofound 2012) groups the involvement of the social partners in these systems
into five categories:
■ institutional involvement in stable tripartite institutions connected to the policy-making process.
This is the case in a large number of continental and Nordic countries, such as AT, DE, LU, NL,
DK, PT, BG, CY, CZ, EE, EL, HU, LV, LT, PL, RO, SK, SI;
■ institutional involvement in stable bipartite bodies associated to the process, such as BE and FR;
■ involvement in ad hoc committees established by public authorities when needed, as in FI;
■ Non-formal involvement in information and consultation practices within policy-making
process, such as in IT, NO, SE, UK; and
■ participation without (at least explicit) involvement on the part of the state, as in IE, MT, ES.
Under this classification, Eurofound notes that in almost all countries, the social partners are, to
some extent or another, involved by public authorities in the design or readjustment of
unemployment benefit systems. However, it is important to stress that the form that involvement
takes does not necessarily predict the actual role of the social partners in the decision-making
process.
235